Crunchy conservatism and Bush

Reading Ross's blog just now, I see that Jonah G. says that Bush's failings come because Bush was too crunchy-con for his own good, so who am I to complain? (See here for the link to Jonah's post, and Ross's response). I'm really glad Ross said pretty much all that needs to be said in response, so I can just crawl my jet-lagged self into bed without having to do any heavy lifting. I would just add that I'm not a classical "small government" conservative, but that I don't see what's so crunchy-con about No Child Left Behind, about deficit spending (e.g., I believe that if we're going to spend more on defense, social programs, or whatever, we should pay for it; and if we're not willing to tax ourselves to do that, we shouldn't have the programs), about the Iraq war, about open-borders immigration "reform," or about the wretched cronyism and lack of accountability endemic to this administration. I'm not against activist government in principle, but I am against many of the signature programs of this administration, and strongly against the incompetence of its governance. Like I said earlier, there was plenty about Bush's governing to object to as a conservative before the war went permanently bad, but like many of my brethren and sistren on the right, I didn't much complain.

UPDATE: Dan Larison expands on the point. Dan makes some helpful distinctions. When I say I'm not a "classical 'small government' conservative," what I mean is I'm not the kind of conservative who believes that government is, in principle, the problem. There are some challenges that require the offices of government to be dealt with effectively. And though all modern conservatives are, or should be, suspicious of state power, there are some things big government does that are wholly defensible. I don't want, though, to be understood as agreeing with Reagan's famous line that "government isn't the solution, government is the problem." Actually, original sin is the problem, and always will be. Insofar as government thinks it can eliminate it, government is a problem. Still, I don't believe, as some conservatives do, or did, that if only we "get government off our backs," all will be well. As Dan points out, traditionalist conservatives believe that government can act as a crutch obviating the need for virtue and self-sufficiency in the populace.

Anyway, as Dan said, crunchy conservatism is not a set of policy prescriptions, but rather a sensibility, an orientation towards life -- and I wrote that in my book. I favor a general government ban on abortion, for example, but if a conservative objected to that on philosophical or pragmatic reasons, while agreeing with the general principles of traditionalist conservatism, why should I say, "Aha! That proves it! You're not one of us!"? Anyway, those who keep caricaturing crunchy conservatism as Mr. Van Driessen conservatism are being neither accurate nor fair.